自由民主的问责标准和公共行政

IF 6.1 1区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Public Administration Review Pub Date : 2024-04-30 DOI:10.1111/puar.13831
Christopher Koliba
{"title":"自由民主的问责标准和公共行政","authors":"Christopher Koliba","doi":"10.1111/puar.13831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper serves as a renewed call for public management scholars and public leaders in liberal democracies to be the champions of accountability standards that are explicitly and implicitly inherent to liberal democratic forms of governance. This call is particularly salient amid increasing populism, polarization, and democratic backsliding. Drawing from the historical and contemporary political and legal philosophies of small‐<jats:italic>l</jats:italic> liberalism and democracy advanced throughout the ages, we define a set of seven liberal democratic accountability standards focusing on matters of authority, rights, tolerance, truth claims, and professional deference. We then consider how these standards relate to some of public administration and management's ongoing considerations of the politics‐administration dichotomy, citizen engagement, and network governance, and make the case for more explicit focus on liberal democratic accountability standards in public management scholarship.","PeriodicalId":48431,"journal":{"name":"Public Administration Review","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Liberal democratic accountability standards and public administration\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Koliba\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/puar.13831\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper serves as a renewed call for public management scholars and public leaders in liberal democracies to be the champions of accountability standards that are explicitly and implicitly inherent to liberal democratic forms of governance. This call is particularly salient amid increasing populism, polarization, and democratic backsliding. Drawing from the historical and contemporary political and legal philosophies of small‐<jats:italic>l</jats:italic> liberalism and democracy advanced throughout the ages, we define a set of seven liberal democratic accountability standards focusing on matters of authority, rights, tolerance, truth claims, and professional deference. We then consider how these standards relate to some of public administration and management's ongoing considerations of the politics‐administration dichotomy, citizen engagement, and network governance, and make the case for more explicit focus on liberal democratic accountability standards in public management scholarship.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Administration Review\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Administration Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13831\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Administration Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13831","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文再次呼吁自由民主国家的公共管理学者和公共领导人成为问责标准的拥护者,因为问责标准是自由民主治理形式明示和暗示的内在要求。在民粹主义、两极分化和民主倒退日益加剧的情况下,这一呼吁尤为突出。我们从历史和当代的小自由主义和民主的政治与法律哲学中汲取营养,定义了一套七项自由民主的问责标准,重点是权威、权利、宽容、真理要求和专业尊重。然后,我们考虑了这些标准与公共行政和管理部门正在考虑的政治-行政二分法、公民参与和网络治理之间的关系,并提出了在公共管理学术研究中更明确地关注自由民主问责标准的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Liberal democratic accountability standards and public administration
This paper serves as a renewed call for public management scholars and public leaders in liberal democracies to be the champions of accountability standards that are explicitly and implicitly inherent to liberal democratic forms of governance. This call is particularly salient amid increasing populism, polarization, and democratic backsliding. Drawing from the historical and contemporary political and legal philosophies of small‐l liberalism and democracy advanced throughout the ages, we define a set of seven liberal democratic accountability standards focusing on matters of authority, rights, tolerance, truth claims, and professional deference. We then consider how these standards relate to some of public administration and management's ongoing considerations of the politics‐administration dichotomy, citizen engagement, and network governance, and make the case for more explicit focus on liberal democratic accountability standards in public management scholarship.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Public Administration Review
Public Administration Review PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
10.80%
发文量
130
期刊介绍: Public Administration Review (PAR), a bi-monthly professional journal, has held its position as the premier outlet for public administration research, theory, and practice for 75 years. Published for the American Society for Public Administration,TM/SM, it uniquely serves both academics and practitioners in the public sector. PAR features articles that identify and analyze current trends, offer a factual basis for decision-making, stimulate discussion, and present leading literature in an easily accessible format. Covering a diverse range of topics and featuring expert book reviews, PAR is both exciting to read and an indispensable resource in the field.
期刊最新文献
The evolving practice of UK Government ministers Executive policymaking influence via the administrative apparatus First impressions: An analysis of professional stereotypes and their impact on sector attraction Evaluating use of evidence in U.S. state governments: A conjoint analysis How scholars can support government analytics: Combining employee surveys with more administrative data sources towards a better understanding of how government functions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1